(CNSNews.com) - Back in 2008 then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) knew where she wanted to place the blame for high gas prices. “The price of oil is at the doorstep -- 4 dollars plus per gallon for oil, is attributed to two oil men in the White House,” Pelosi said in a CNN interview on July 17th, 2008.

Now that President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are out of the White House, Pelosi has been silent on the issue. She has made no public comments on gas prices over the past few months. President Barack Obama however, has been fielding questions on the issue as he begins his bid for re-election.

Discussing the price of gas while campaigning is nothing new for Obama, he was critical of the high cost in 2007, “We’ve got an economy that is doing very well for some, but is leaving folks all across the country and the heartland struggling to figure out how do they fill up their gas tanks,” Obama said at a July 3rd, 2007 campaign event in Iowa.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdq0nN_JLtU&feature=player_embedded

Even though gas is more expensive right now than in the summer of 2007, then as well as now, Obama discusses having a new, diverse energy policy for America as the answer to the price problem. One major difference between these campaign stops in 2007 and his recent speeches at Democratic National Committee events, is his criticism of America’s foreign policy.

“We have been engaged in a foreign policy that fundamentally does not work. That we’ve got a war that should have never been authorized, a war that should have never have been waged, a war that has cost us billions of dollars and thousands of lives and has not made us safer, but has distorted our foreign policy and has diminished our standing all around the world,” Obama said while campaigning in Iowa in 2007.

There are no oil men in the WH. There are no small business men in the WH. There are only liberal academic idiots that do not know their ass from the whole in the ground when it comes to the oil industry.

PoliCon

04-29-2011, 06:20 PM

There are no oil men in the WH. There are no small business men in the WH. There are only liberal academic idiots that do not know their ass from the whole in the ground when it comes to the oil industry.

that would be a HOLE in the ground. :rolleyes:

namvet

04-29-2011, 07:48 PM

but the craps had their own solution in 08. sue OPEC which they did :rolleyes:

lacarnut

04-29-2011, 08:07 PM

that would be a HOLE in the ground. :rolleyes:

Right. I must have been speed typing (30wpm on a good day) and hit an extra key.:)

hazlnut

04-29-2011, 08:41 PM

What's with CSN news?

Why do you far-righties always insist on getting your info from sources that just repeat the same narrative. Are you actually afraid of getting real objective news?

Why?

Sure, you have to think, analyze, decide... when sifting through real news, but that's called critical thinking. That's why you went to college. Don't waste your college education just getting the narrative that makes you most comfortable.

Get some real news.

JB

04-29-2011, 08:51 PM

What's with CSN news? <snip>Ug.

Pelosi blamed high gas prices in 2008 on Bush and Cheney. Gas prices are even higher now yet she hasn't said a word about it.

Those are the facts and the point of this thread. Where's her fat mouth now?

Either way, we should look the other way as oil executives are drawn and quartered by suburban soccer mobs. It's a good release for the people.

lacarnut

04-30-2011, 01:16 AM

Either way, we should look the other way as oil executives are drawn and quartered by suburban soccer mobs. It's a good release for the people.

Maybe you should look at the sorry bastards who have greatly thwarted efforts to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. That would be the Democrats and Obummer by putting up roadblocks on building new refineries, drilling in the Gulf, drilling in Anwar, the EPA trying to put a lizard on the endangered list, preventing nuke power, Bubba placing federal lands out west off limits to coal production and on and on.

You really are a dumb ass that does not have a clue about the oil industry.

Novaheart

04-30-2011, 01:14 PM

Maybe you should look at the sorry bastards who have greatly thwarted efforts to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. That would be the Democrats and Obummer by putting up roadblocks on building new refineries, drilling in the Gulf, drilling in Anwar, the EPA trying to put a lizard on the endangered list, preventing nuke power, Bubba placing federal lands out west off limits to coal production and on and on.

You really are a dumb ass that does not have a clue about the oil industry.

It is a contradiction to believe that the government is both controlled by industry lobbyists and working against them.

Sorry lacarnut, I don't buy the standard spiel. When gas prices soar, Exxon makes more money, does it not? So why would we think that these oil companies actually want to secure and increase the flow? Besides, most of our oil comes from Canada, Mexico, and the US.

A common public perception is that if we increase oil and gasoline production that the oil companies will simply sell it elsewhere and still gouge the American consumer. To date I haven't seen anything which says that domestic production would have to be used to lower US prices. So why should the public think that giving green lights to the oil companies is in their best interests?

I think another common perception is that we are saving our oil and burning OPO (other people's oil) so that we have critical reserves. There is some logic to that.

Either way, if the standard slogans and demands for public support for domestic production aren't working, then it might be time to take a different tack. I would say that that different tack would be to stop trying to bribe public officials, and to spend that money to educate common people on the subject in a way that makes it clear where their best interests lie, if indeed they do. Personally, I don't see Exxon making 6 billion in a quarter and getting 4 billion in subsidies in that same period of time as being particularly good for the country.

Lanie

05-01-2011, 12:17 AM

It's our fault for our neverending policy of doing business with the enemy. Now, apparently if we drill, we won't have nearly enough oil for what we use it for. Maybe we shouldn't drive so much? I know there's work, but think about it. Is it *always* necessary to drive? Is it *always* necessary to use two cars to go to something?

Rockntractor

05-01-2011, 12:42 AM

It's our fault for our neverending policy of doing business with the enemy. Now, apparently if we drill, we won't have nearly enough oil for what we use it for. Maybe we shouldn't drive so much? I know there's work, but think about it. Is it *always* necessary to drive? Is it *always* necessary to use two cars to go to something?

http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/valley_girl.gif

:D

Odysseus

05-01-2011, 01:46 AM

There are no oil men in the WH. There are no small business men in the WH. There are only liberal academic idiots that do not know their ass from the whole in the ground when it comes to the oil industry.

Of course this administration has oil men. It's snake oil, but it's still oil.

txradioguy

05-01-2011, 02:15 AM

It is a contradiction to believe that the government is both controlled by industry lobbyists and working against them.

Then perhaps...could it be...that you've been lied to all these yeaers by your Liberal masters? Perhaps Government isn't as much in the pocket of the oil lobbyists as you've been led to believe.

Sorry lacarnut, I don't buy the standard spiel. When gas prices soar, Exxon makes more money, does it not? So why would we think that these oil companies actually want to secure and increase the flow?

No their after tax profit stays about the same. They do end up paying more in taxes however.

Oil companies profit margin is less than 10% and that's even in the boom years.

Besides, most of our oil comes from Canada, Mexico, and the US.

That's only oil from the non-OPEC nations. With the U.S. contributing very very little to the overall total.

A common public perception is that if we increase oil and gasoline production that the oil companies will simply sell it elsewhere and still gouge the American consumer.

Not sure where outside of liberal enclaves that's popular.

To date I haven't seen anything which says that domestic production would have to be used to lower US prices. So why should the public think that giving green lights to the oil companies is in their best interests? \

It's in everyone's best interest...except the greens and the Libs running for office. We produce more oil and gas at home it takes away ammo from the Enviro-NAZI's and Libtards scare tactics.

How can they scare us into buying stupid little smart cars if they can tell everyone how dependent we are on foreign oil?

More drilling in the U.S. is only part of the solution in bringing the proices down. We need more refineries too. The last new one built in the U.S. came online when Carter was president.

There are five majore refineries in the U.S. that produce gasoline for the entire nation. Starting about now at least two of them will be offline for 2-3 months for repairs. This happens every year because of their age and the amount of maintainence that has to be done to keep them going.

When that happens the supply of gasoline decreases and the price goes up until the other two refineries come back online.

There is also the issue of special blends of gasoline for certain areas of the country. The refinery that does that can't make any other type of gasoline while it's making the special blends.

So there you go...5 refineries...working round the clock.

Imagine what we could do with say two more? But thanks th your Liberal brethren they've made it too expensive and too complicated to even expand the current refineries much less build new ones.

Environmental policy that the left is beholden to has put us in this situation. That and the outright lies they tell.

ANWR ring a bell?

I think another common perception is that we are saving our oil and burning OPO (other people's oil) so that we have critical reserves. There is some logic to that.

There's less logic to that than your other "popular perception".

Either way, if the standard slogans and demands for public support for domestic production aren't working, then it might be time to take a different tack. I would say that that different tack would be to stop trying to bribe public officials, and to spend that money to educate common people on the subject in a way that makes it clear where their best interests lie, if indeed they do. Personally, [quote]

The problem is...is that the people in control of the "teaching" about this stuff are dishonest in what they say.

And the people that know the facts and try to counter the lies get shouted down or completely ignored.

[quote]I don't see Exxon making 6 billion in a quarter and getting 4 billion in subsidies in that same period of time as being particularly good for the country.

Of course you don't...but then you have demonstrated you know very little about the oil and gas industry other than what you've been told.

It's tax breaks. Get off the talking points. Do you call whatever tax break you get when you file a "subsidy"?

The problem is...is that the people in control of the "teaching" about this stuff are dishonest in what they say.

And the people that know the facts and try to counter the lies get shouted down or completely ignored.

Kay

05-01-2011, 02:40 AM

It's our fault for our neverending policy of doing business with the enemy. Now, apparently if we drill, we won't have nearly enough oil for what we use it for. Maybe we shouldn't drive so much? I know there's work, but think about it. Is it *always* necessary to drive? Is it *always* necessary to use two cars to go to something?

Perhaps you should go seek out an oil executive and give him the same courtesy
you gave that mosque dweller to explain himself and the ways of the crude to you.

AmPat

05-01-2011, 11:23 AM

Ug.

Pelosi blamed high gas prices in 2008 on Bush and Cheney. Gas prices are even higher now yet she hasn't said a word about it.

Those are the facts and the point of this thread. Where's her fat mouth now?

What difference does it make what "reporter" said them?
The drooler has no defense as usual so he attacks an ancillary issue. Typical liberal avoidance and red herring tactic.

AmPat

05-01-2011, 11:42 AM

When Reagan proposed stripping regulation and opening up oil reserves as well as making it easier to explore for oil, the price went down. Every time a GOP president suggests that, the price goes down. THIS incompetent bunch of academic morons have made production and exploration impossible. They have done it deliberately.
Why the moratorium in the gulf when the Great O Blah Blah give a pass to other countries to drill?
Why does he make it impossible to get permits to drill elsewhere?
Why the hoax of an endangered lizard that isn't?

As for prices of gasoline, it isn't solely due to supply and demand. Gasoline costs more from foreign companies because this bunch of retards devalued our dollar. They believe that printing money will cover their other idiotic policies and practices without negative repercussions. Other countries want more of our dollars for the same barrel of oil to offset the devalued currency.

You liberals need to stop with the blind defense and following your god off the cliff. He is no longer a suspected idiot, he has proven it. You know it, we knew it from the start (since day one).:cool:

namvet

05-01-2011, 11:55 AM

When Reagan proposed stripping regulation and opening up oil reserves as well as making it easier to explore for oil, the price went down. Every time a GOP president suggests that, the price goes down. THIS incompetent bunch of academic morons have made production and exploration impossible. They have done it deliberately.
Why the moratorium in the gulf when the Great O Blah Blah give a pass to other countries to drill?
Why does he make it impossible to get permits to drill elsewhere?
Why the hoax of an endangered lizard that isn't?

As for prices of gasoline, it isn't solely due to supply and demand. Gasoline costs more from foreign companies because this bunch of retards devalued our dollar. They believe that printing money will cover their other idiotic policies and practices without negative repercussions. Other countries want more of our dollars for the same barrel of oil to offset the devalued currency.

You liberals need to stop with the blind defense and following your god off the cliff. He is no longer a suspected idiot, he has proven it. You know it, we knew it from the start (since day one).:cool:

You liberals need to stop with the blind defense and following your god off the cliff

once a lib................

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3613/3279236161_c0e90e2e6d_o.gif

Zathras

05-01-2011, 01:31 PM

Either way, we should look the other way as oil executives are drawn and quartered by suburban soccer mobs. It's a good release for the people.

Why? Shouldn't they be going after the government who make, here in California, 33 times more profit on a gallon of gas than the oil companies? And they don't have to do anything to do it unlike the oil companies who actually have to spend money out of the 0.02 per gallon profit to explore and manufacture the product.

Through taxes here in California the government, both fed and local, make 0.66 per gallon....and they do nothing to put the gas on the market for us to use. It's basically free money for them.

lacarnut

05-01-2011, 03:32 PM

It is a contradiction to believe that the government is both controlled by industry lobbyists and working against them.

Sorry lacarnut, I don't buy the standard spiel. When gas prices soar, Exxon makes more money, does it not? So why would we think that these oil companies actually want to secure and increase the flow? Besides, most of our oil comes from Canada, Mexico, and the US.

A common public perception is that if we increase oil and gasoline production that the oil companies will simply sell it elsewhere and still gouge the American consumer. To date I haven't seen anything which says that domestic production would have to be used to lower US prices. So why should the public think that giving green lights to the oil companies is in their best interests?

I think another common perception is that we are saving our oil and burning OPO (other people's oil) so that we have critical reserves. There is some logic to that.

Either way, if the standard slogans and demands for public support for domestic production aren't working, then it might be time to take a different tack. I would say that that different tack would be to stop trying to bribe public officials, and to spend that money to educate common people on the subject in a way that makes it clear where their best interests lie, if indeed they do. Personally, I don't see Exxon making 6 billion in a quarter and getting 4 billion in subsidies in that same period of time as being particularly good for the country.

The facts are that the price of oil is stated in dollars. The dollar is falling like a rock. Therefore, it takes more dollars to buy a barrel of oil. The same is true of wheat, corn, cotton and other commodities which have increased percentage wise on par with oil . Dollar devaluation by the Feds is one of the reasons that oil is increasing in price. Then there is a little thing like supply and demand. The Chinese and other emerging markets are using more oil because their economies are growing at a fast rate. Then you have Japan whose nuke power has been decimated which means they have to import more oil. Then you have the political unrest in the M.E. You tie all those things together and the price of oil is going up and up. Exxon has nothing to do with the price of oil. Morons in the WH and liberals might think so but they are wrong. FYI, the shell game the administration is hawking regarding investigating speculators and oil companies was already tried in 2008 after prices spiked. You know what they found? Nothing

Oil companies want to drill more. That is their business. Anyone that thinks otherwise is a fool. For your information, Exxon is having a hard time keeping it's production the same cause. They did not even bid on any of the oil leases in Iraq because of low compensation. In most of the world, a foreign country is paid per dollar per barrel. So, if the price goes up, the oil company gets the same amount of money.

Oil is a commodity. So more drilling equals more oil on the market equals a lower price. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out. The facts are that Obama is anti-drilling but only in America. He does not have a problem lending millions, which we do not have, to Brazil and Columbia for them to drill for oil. How insane is that.

The oil companies hire more employees at great paying jobs and put more money into the treasury than any other industry. They pay their fair share which is around 40%. Conversely, Obama's big buddy Immelt at GE paid zero tax. How about doing away with the exorbitant amount of subsidies that GE gets. We don't hear much from partisan liberal hacks about that. Like I said, Immelt and Rangel belong in jail for bribery and a quid pro quo for fixing an exemption that was getting ready to expire. Then GE donated 30 million to Rangel's district for the bribe.